[July 2006 journal entry]
Eliphaz sets out some challenging goals for speaking to/in the presence of a sufferer such as the ‘scrapheap’ Job. Do the three close friends’ repeated failures to meet these goals with their responses to the ‘scrapheap’ Job stem from their inabilities or from an inherent deficiency in the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm theology that (in)forms their responses? If Job has previously tried to help sufferers through difficulties by defending the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm (even to the sufferer’s own hurt), then the paradigm is at fault. If Job has previously been willing to set aside the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm in order to be authentically and unconditionally with sufferers, then the friends are not as capable as he has been in comforting/consoling sufferers. But does the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm tolerate being set aside? What would setting aside the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm imply about the paradigm?
Eliphaz sets out some challenging goals for speaking to/in the presence of a sufferer such as the ‘scrapheap’ Job. Do the three close friends’ repeated failures to meet these goals with their responses to the ‘scrapheap’ Job stem from their inabilities or from an inherent deficiency in the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm theology that (in)forms their responses? If Job has previously tried to help sufferers through difficulties by defending the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm (even to the sufferer’s own hurt), then the paradigm is at fault. If Job has previously been willing to set aside the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm in order to be authentically and unconditionally with sufferers, then the friends are not as capable as he has been in comforting/consoling sufferers. But does the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm tolerate being set aside? What would setting aside the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm imply about the paradigm?